On 16/03/17 15:31 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
All in all it seems to some extent reasonable to me to allow such code. It seems rather easy to fail to provide a function pointer as the comparator type, but also rather easy for the implementation to not mind that. I do find it suspicious that any user code would bother providing the comparator type as a template argument, though; whenever users feel encouraged to do that, trouble ensues. At this point I'm gravitating towards fixing the regression now, and possibly being more stringent in the next release, meaning gcc 8.
Yeah, we could add a static_assert with a user-friendly message telling them why the code is invalid, instead of an impenetrable error about internal implementation details. So I'll commit the fix, treating it as a regression.
